Lots of aspects of a mind suffused with Islam are on display, and there is no way to summarize his views adequately. He's against Al-Maliki, against the Iranians, and thinks that if he were in charge, and the Al-Mukhtar Militia, they would drive ISIS out and make its members put on women's clothes, like the Mounties in the Monty-Python sketch.

The speech could be used as the basis of an SNL skit. And yet Watheq Al-Battat's blend of bluster and bravado somehow does not offend. He doesn't blame America, or Israel or the world's Infidels. He talks mostly about Al-Maliki and the bad leadership of the Shi'ites in Iraq.

The Oxford Mail were unfailing in their coverage of the trial of the worst gang apprehended in this investigation so I went straight to their website for coverage of the release of the SCR this morning. That is, the Serious Case Review by Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board investigating why men have been able to groom and sexually exploit girls in Oxfordshire

As the reporters said at 10.00 am "The main report is 114 pages and we are still reading through it."

The review finds a similar catalogue of neglect and refusal by the police and Oxfordshire Council to take the girls and their parents seriously that we read of in Rotherham. What is unusual is that the author of the report Alan Bedford of the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board, does not believe that the failings were motivated by fear of accusations of racism. However the Telegraph says that

The report also urges the Government to carry out research into why there is a particular problem with child sexual exploitation within the Muslim or Pakistani community in Britain.

and

“As has been found wherever this type of organised group abuse has been uncovered, the perpetrators have been mainly from an Asian heritage, with some from Africa or south-east European countries, and with a mainly Muslim culture. The association of group-based child sexual exploitation with mainly Pakistani heritage [men] is undeniable and prevention will need both national understanding. communication and debate, but also work with faith groups at a local level.”

Thames Valley Police has referred itself to the Independent Police Complaints Commission over the Bullfinch report and its failings. But no one in any senior position in the police force of the council has resigned or been disciplined. Or not yet. The report says it was due to the work and persistance of junior staff that the abuse was eventually addressed.

Both police and council accept they fell short; both bodies claim that lessons have been learn and proceedures improved.

The police were accused of adopting tunnel vision, were investigations prior to Bullfinch looked incidents separately, “and not join the dots to other reports to the police”.

Reports of the girls going missing – which happened on more than 400 occasions – were not always dealt with properly, including one police call operator not recognising one report needed an urgent response even after a parent said their daughter was being “held against her will by Asian males”.

One young women told the review team: “I turned up at the police station at two or three am, blood all over me, soaked through my trousers to the crotch. They dismissed me as being naughty, a nuisance. I was bruised and bloody.” .. .As the serious case review notes, ‘One does not need training in CSE to know that a 12-year-old sleeping with a 25-year-old is not right, or that you don’t come back drunk, bruised, half naked and bleeding from seeing your 'friends'.”

Police and social services were accused of not believing the girls or taking their families' complaints seriously enough.

Mr Bedford wrote: “They saw staff as not taking concerns seriously enough, not believing the girls, not picking up the hints that they were giving about their abuse and not being inquisitive enough about what was happening to them.”

One manager is described in the report as telling a parent their daughter was “streetwise and loves it.”

The Telegraph reports something that I have said myself for a very long time.

“The Serious Case Review ... emphasises: “The law around consent was not properly understood and the reviewer finds confusion related to a national culture where children are sexualised at an ever younger age and deemed able to consent to, say, contraception long before they are legally able to have sex.

“A professional tolerance to knowing young teenagers were having sex seems with adults seems to have developed. . . In the tension between inaction to be non-judgmental and action to prevent harm because an activity is wrong or inappropriate, the latter should be the overriding principle with children.

“There needs to be a rethink of national guidance regarding sexually active children to ensure that well-intentioned policies to support the vulnerable young do not inadvertently add to a climate that facilitates exploitation.”

And that goes back to a general motive to socially engineer the breakdown of British society using the internal structure as well as mass immigration and pandering to Islam. And I fear it will take more than a Serious Case Review to turn that corruption around.

Israel is having its fate decided by the American government, in its negotiations with the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. If Iran becomes -- has the "capability" of quickly becoming -- a nuclear power, it is not the Americans who will suffer, not their country that will be destroyed, but Israel. That is why one should be put in mind of Czechoslovakia, and the wretched performance of Chamberlain and Daladier, in so misunderstanding both those they were dealing with, and what was at stake. Netanyahu knows the rulers -- the clerics and military men -- who control the Islamic Republic, and he knows what is at stake, for Israel, for the Middle East, and for the rest of the world.

The American negotiatiors have retreated far, very far, from their original position. And what is peculiar is that they have done this at the very time when the Islamic Republic of Iran is weaker than ever. The oil revenues have beenb cut in half in less than a year. The rainfall on which agriculture depends has not arrived, and the famous system of irrigation tubes that Iran has depended on for several millennia has not rescued the situation. Tens of thousands of Iranian girls now ply their trade as prostitutes in the Gulf, to rich Arab customers; millions of Iranian young people are drug addicts; the birth rate among educated Iranians has plunmeted; the dreams of some that Iran could "lead the Muslim world" have collapsed, for those who have eyes to see, because everywhere Sunnis are killing Shi'a, in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Iraq, in Syria, and not even an Iranian atomic weapon or two used against Israel will turn the Shi'a into full-fledged Muslims in Sunni eyes; they are, they have been, they will remain despised and, for some, Infidels, even "the worst kind of Infidels." In such circumstances, it ought to have been the American government that hardened its positionm, and did not yield, but the reverse has occurred. Why?

John Kerr i, part of an administration that has continually treated Isreal with contumely (remember the comments during the Gaza campaign? Or, just the other day, the labelling of Israeli "settlement" activity as illegal, when it not only not illegal, but specificallly to be encouraged under the still-relevant terms of the Mandate for Palestine, which applies to the territories which Israel took possession of through force of arms in the Six-Day War, but to which it had a prior, an outstanding, legal, historic, and moral claim based on the Mandate itself, and on all the rules of warfare and post-bellum settlements since time began)a government that has failed to notice how weak the Islamic Republic of Iran has become, with its annual rainfall diminishing, its oil revenues cut in half, its borders worrisomely open to attack by Sunnis in Baluchistan and Kurds in Kurdistan. And there are Azeris, preferring to be independent of the Persians, looking to Azerbaijan.

And Kerry has the gall to declare that if the Israelis dare to drop hints as to the colossal and dangerous concessions that the Americans are now ready to make, have already agreed to make, that it is they who wll "have betryaed the trust." This is not tolerable.

An audience of 16,000 at the AIPAC Washington Policy Conference enthusiastically welcomed Israeli PM Netanyahu’s appearance, today. Netanyahu's speech was a prelude to his appearance before a joint Session of Congress tomorrow at 10:45AM EST. It will be televised by Fox-News and C-SPAN. Fox will have commentary from a panel both prior to and following Netanyahu’s Congressional speech. The Voice of Israel will broadcast it live via the internet with following commentary.

Some likened today's remarks as a warm up to the main event on Tuesday, March 3rd. For many of us his AIPAC Conference remarks today were punctuated by his eloquent Churchillian cadences. Other lines echoed Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s 1938 Tish B’Av “Ihr Kommt” (they’re coming) speech to Jews in Poland warning them of their impending destruction during Hitler’s Final Solution, the Holocaust. Other lines were reminiscent of Churchill’s caustic Parliamentary remarks on the Munich 1938 appeasement by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Eduard Daladier acceding to Hitler’s demand that Czech President Eduard Benes unilaterally cede Sudetenland thus dismembering Czechoslovakia. All while Chamberlain waved that scrap of paper upon arrival at Heston aerodrome saying that he had achieved “peace for our times”. That imagery was captured in Netanyahu’s lavish praise heaped on Czech President Zeman who was on the dais at the AIPAC conference. Netanyahu thanked Zeman for the country’s enduring support for Zionism espoused by Czech Republic founder Thomas Masyrk and the material support the Czechs provided post WWII to Israel during the 1948-1949 War for Independence. That was captured in Netanyahu’s reference in his speech to the Czech rifle he trained with as an IDF Sayeret Matkal member.

Netanyahu paid copious respects to AIPAC officials, noted "no disrespect to President Obama", and pledged fealty to the long enduring bi-partisan US relations with ally Israel. An Israel, as he pointed out, that shared common Western values of freedom, liberty, civil and human rights for the Jewish nation’s citizens. He noted as one example prominent women jurists on its High Court and as CEOs of Israeli companies.

Screen shot of Global Map of Iran Terror used by PM Netanyahu at 2015 AIPAC

The purpose of my address to Congress tomorrow is to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel. Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Look at that graph. Look at that map. And you see on the wall, it shows Iran training, arming, dispatching terrorists on five continents. Iran envelopes the entire world with its tentacles of terror. This is what Iran is doing now without nuclear weapons. Imagine what Iran would do with nuclear weapons.

And this same Iran vows to annihilate Israel. If it develops nuclear weapons, it would have the means to achieve that goal. We must not let that happen.

And as prime minister of Israel, I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there's still time to avert them. For 2,000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless. We were utterly powerless against our enemies who swore to destroy us. We suffered relentless persecution and horrific attacks. We could never speak on our own behalf, and we could not defend ourselves.

Well, no more, no more.

The days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us, those days are over. Today in our sovereign state of Israel, we defend ourselves. And being able to defend ourselves, we ally with others, most importantly, the United States of America, to defend our common civilization against common threats.

In our part of the world and increasingly, in every part of the world, no one makes alliances with the weak. You seek out those who have strength, those who have resolve, those who have the determination to fight for themselves. That's how alliances are formed.

US UN Ambassador Power, speaking at AIPAC today, accorded respect for the enduring US-Israel alliance. She also said that the Administration would stop Iran from achieving a nuclear breakthrough:

The United States of America will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, Period.

We believe diplomacy is the preferred route to secure our shared aim. But if diplomacy fails, we know the stakes of a nuclear-armed Iran as well as everyone here. We will not let it happen. There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.

However, she tossed a barb at both Netanyahu and House Speaker Boehner for engaging in partisan politics with her remarks:

This partnership should never be politicized, and it cannot and will not be tarnished or broken. Debating the merits of a deal with Iran is legitimate. Politicizing that process is not. The stakes are too high for that.

For her appearance as an Administration senior official, she received a standing ovation from the 16,000 attendees at the Washington Convention Center site of the Conference.

Watch this C-Span video of US UN Ambassador Power’s remarks at the 2015 AIPAC conference.

More of the same followed from another Administration senior official, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, when she mounted the podium at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center to deliver her remarks. Rice appeared to be toeing the Administration line saying, “sound bites won't stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.” Rice essentially denied the possibility of ending Iran’s nuclear enrichment saying:

[ getting Iran to] forego its domestic enrichment capacity entirely… as desirable as that would be … is neither realistic nor achievable. The plain fact is no one can make Iran unlearn the scientific and nuclear expertise it already possesses.

She cautioned that it wasn't a "viable negotiating position" to attempt to block Iran from using its nuclear capacity for domestic energy reasons.

Now I want to be very clear: a bad deal is worse than no deal,

We have Israel's back come hell or high water.

Given Iran’s support for terrorism, the risk of a nuclear arms race in the region, and the danger to the entire global non-proliferation regime, Iran with a nuclear weapon would not just be a threat to Israel, it’s also an unacceptable threat to the United States of America.

Given Iran’s support for terrorism, the risk of a nuclear arms race in the region, and the danger to the entire global non-proliferation regime, Iran with a nuclear weapon would not just be a threat to Israel, it’s also an unacceptable threat to the United States of America.

We have Israel's back come hell or high water.

On sanctions, Rice made it abundantly clear why the Administration opposed any new legislation, saying:

We cannot let a totally unachievable ideal stand in the way of a good deal [with Iran]. Sanctions, have never stopped Iran from advancing its [nuclear] program. New sanctions would blow up the talks, divide the international community, and cause the U.S. to be blamed for causing negotiations with Iran to fail.

Not unlike Power, Rice received a standing ovation ironically for policies that she opposes. Note what blog Twitchyreported:

The highlight of her speech was undoubtedly the standing ovation she received for acknowledging the desire for a complete halt to Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. The look on her face while waiting for the cheers to die down so she could add “but” and finish her sentence: priceless.

Watch this You Tube video of the AIPAC audience applauding her and her befuddled expression:

That effectively shot down the faint hopes of many of the 16,000 in the Convention Center.

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), co-author of the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015 with new sanctions, stormed up to the podium at AIPAC to rebut Rice. He said:

Iran needs to understand that there are consequences to an impasse and those consequences are additional consequential sanctions.

As long as I have an ounce of fight left in me… Iran will never have a pathway to a weapon.

It will never threaten Israel or its neighbors, and it will never be in a position to star a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Not on my watch.

Watch this C-Span video of Sen. Menendez's remarks at the 2015 AIPAC Conference.

Secretary of State Kerry, speaking from Geneva, Switzerland earlier today in the midst of discussions with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif, voiced concerns that ‘leaks’ by Israel might jeopardize the phased deal. Kerry said:

We are concerned by reports that suggest selective details of the ongoing negotiations will be discussed publicly in the coming days. Doing so would make it more difficult to reach the goal that Israel and others say they share in order to get to a good deal. Israel's security is absolutely at the forefront of all of our minds, but frankly so is the security of all of the other countries in the region. So is our security.

Kerry made a brief appearance at the UN Human Rights Commission today in Geneva voicing concerns about the panel’s pre-occupation with isolating Israel, saying:

We will oppose any effort by any group or participant in the U.N. system to arbitrarily and regularly delegitimize or isolate, Israel. No country should be free from scrutiny on human rights, but no country should be subjected to unfair or unfounded bias.

President Obama in a Reuters interview several hours after Netanyahu’s speech at AIPAC expressed the view that the current discord would not seriously disrupt relations with Israel. Nevertheless he harshly criticized Netanyahu’s refrain about a bad deal emerging from the bi-lateral diplomatic discussions with Iran. He suggested the emerging 10 year deal with verifications was:

Far more effective in controlling their nuclear program than any military action we could take, any military action Israel could take and far more effective than sanctions will be.

He then took exception to Netanyahu’s criticism of the 2013 interim agreement with Iran:

Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting $50 billion worth of relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement. None of that has come true. It has turned out that in fact, during this period we've seen Iran not advance its program. In many ways, it's rolled back elements of its program.

Watch this video of the Reuters interview with President Obama on March 2, 2015.

The Administration still hasn’t fully understood the import of the Gallup poll of Americans, 84% of whom expressed distrust of Iran, while 77% believed Iran should be denied becoming a nuclear threshold state. As one audience member said at a presentation in Northwest Florida, Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon was a threat not only to Israel, but America as well.

An expectant Israel and the world awaits Netanyahu’s address before a joint session of Congress tomorrow.

Listen to this Voice of Israel Sound Cloud of Netanyahu’s speech at AIPAC. The full text of Netanyahu’s AIPAC remarks can be found in this release by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The mosque in Cambridge on Prospect Street, just across from the first Bread and Circus (now folded into Whole Foods), is part of the larger Islamic Society of Boston. The names of the hitherto-secret funders are now known, and many of them turn out to be rich Saudis. That support, and the selling of land to the Islamic Society of Boston at 10% of its value, through the machbinations of a Muslim who worked for the city government (he's now gone, but the deal he masterminded has not been undone), explain how these mosques are built and the clerics paid. Similar investigations ought to be undertaken all over the country. It will become clear just how few of these structures are paid for by those who attend them-- it's foreign, chiefly Saudi and other Gulf money. And while Islam, the texts of Islam, are themselves dangerous, the ferocity with which certain parts of them are emphasized may depend partly on who has been paying the bills.

A restaurant boss groomed girls as young as 12 with gifts including fast food, cash and flowers, before plying them with booze, a court has heard. Married Mohammed Khubaib, 43, had an almost predatory interest in underage girls but claimed to be their friend, a jury was told.

He allegedly raped a girl of 14 after giving her booze, while his friend Manase Motaung, 32, is said to have raped a 16-year-old.

Khubaib usually gave his alleged victims vodka. He took one to McDonald's, gave her a £40 bunch of flowers for her 15th birthday and said he wanted to marry her, the Old Bailey heard.

He told another 15-year-old she had beautiful eyes but when she said he was too old for her, he allegedly replied: "Age doesn't matter."

But one girl, who was just 15 when she first met Khubaib, today (Mon) told how she turned the tables on the married restaurant owner after refusing his indecent proposal. The girl, who cannot be named, said Khubaib offered her £60 if she went to a house with him there and then.

He allegedly told her: ‘You make me happy, I’ll give you money.’ In a recorded interview she said: ‘He thought because he’s got that many girls, I didn’t know whether he thought “I have got them, I can get more”.

‘I was not having any of it. He made me feel sick. It is disgusting how people can think of that.’

Despite her refusal, Khubaib, who owned the former Peterborough restaurant ‘Zaika’, repeated the offer around two weeks later, this time offering £90, it is alleged.

‘He was, like, the offer’s still there,’ the girl said. Khubaib then allegedly said: ‘You know you want to, all the other girls love it.’

Khubaib is standing trial alongside Manase Motaung, 32 for rape and child sex trafficking of girls aged between 12 and 16. Khubaib, of Cambridge Avenue, Peterborough, denies 11 counts of trafficking for sexual exploitation, and one count of rape.

Three things account for the kind, and size, of the Muslim menace. The first is the rise of OPEC, and the trillions of dollars -- nearly 30 trillion since 1973 alone -- that have allowed the Muslim Arabs to build up huge arsenals of weapons, and to subvert, through bribery both direct and indirect (including the dangling of possible deals before Western businesmen), to acquire power at the U.N. and such succursales as the Human Rights Commission, and among political and media elites all over the world.. The second is the unprecedented move of large numbers of Muslims, from every Muslim land, to the countries of Western Europe, and to a lesser extent North America, where they have been allowed to settle, and to establish beachheads for the spread of Islam, and to make insistent and aggressive demands for changes in the laws and customs and understandings of the advanced West to accomodate the adherents of Islam.

And the third development has been the appropriation, by Muslims, of the technological advances made in the West, by non-Muslims, developments that make it easier to disseminate the full message of Islam. One example are the audiocassettes that proved so important to Khomeini and his supporters, so that even in his exile in France (he had been booted out of Iraq by Saddam Hussein), at Neauphle-le-chateau, he could have his speeches recorded on audiocassette tapes, then sent to Iran where hundreds of thousands of copies were made and distributed. Videocassettes, satellite television (the satellites are Western, the rockets that send them up are in the West), and above all the Internet, entirely a creature of the West, have been exploited to disseminate Muslim propaganda, including that by Al-Qaeda and by the Islamic State.

Now that Twitter has instituted a policy of preventing threats of murder from being posted, the Islamic State naturally takes offense, believing that this violates its free speech rights, its divine right to exploit, in any way Muslims see fit, what the non-Muslim West has created.

Greater Manchester Police charge ten men with catalogue of offences as part of Operation Doublet into alleged sexual exploitation of teenage girls by older men. The charges are as follows: Shayfur Rahman, 31, from Prestwich, has been charged with one count of rape; Kutab Miah, 34, from Rochdale, has been charged with three counts of sexual activity and one count of rape; Rehan Ali, 26, from Blackley, Manchester, has been charged with one count of rape, three counts of sexual activity with a child when the offender was over 18 and three counts of sexual activity with a child when the offender was between 15 and 17. Iklaq Choudhry Hussain, 37, from Rochdale, has been charged with three counts of sexual activity with a child and two counts of rape.David Law, 45, from Ilkeston, Derbyshire has been charged with three counts of conspiracy to commit rape. Mahfus Rahman, 28, of HMP Garth, has been charged with three counts of rape and three counts of sexual activity with a child. Ashfaq Yousaf, 28, of HMP Forest Bank has been charged with one count of aiding and abetting rape against one victim. He has also been charged with one count of rape against a further victim.Afraz Ahmed, 32, from Rochdale has been charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit rape and one count of rape against one victim. He also faces two counts of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, relating to offences against to girls. He has also been charged with one count of rape against a further victim. Mohammed Davood, 37, from Burnley, has been charged with one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against one victim. He has also been charged with three counts of rape, one count of sexual activity with a child and one count of sexual assault against a further victim. Mohammed Miah, 39, of HMP Moorland has been charged with three counts of sexual activity and one count of rape against one victim. He has also been charged with one count of rape against a further victim.
The men have been bailed to appear at either Bury or Tameside Magistrates' Court later this week.

Mohammed Emwazi's younger brother voiced support for the radical Islamic cleric who inspired one of Lee Rigby’s killers, the Telegraph can disclose. Omar Emwazi, 21, indicated that he admired Sheikh Khalid Yasin on his Facebook profile, which was deleted shortly after his brother was identified as "Jihadi John".

Yasin is an notorious American preacher who converted from Christianity to Islam and is believed to live in Manchester. He was named by Woolwich terrorist Michael Adebowale as his inspiration for converting to Islam. Adebowale, 22, said thatlectures posted online by Yasin taught him the purpose of life.

Emwazi has "liked" Yasin on Facebook, as well as Imran ibn Mansur, a preacher who who has likened being gay to having a "disease". Mansur, 24, is a former rapper who calls himself Dawah Manand has reportedly blamed "filthy Western culture" for impulses which should be "surpressed" and claimed that homosexuality comes "under the category of 'obscene, filthy, shameless'."

He is an integral member of a network called Power of Dawah, an evangelical Islamic group that tries to convert people in the street. The group has hosted lectures by various preachers, which are filmed and put online.

Its Twitter account follows Abdur Raheem Green, a controversial preacher who has justified domestic abuse and has suggested that the 7/7 and 9/11 attacks could have been carried out by western governments.

Emwazi registered the PowerofDawah.com website. When his brother was unmasked last week, Emwazi immediately renamed his Facebook profile Omar Omar in a bid to avoid detection. He later deleted it entirely, wiping all evidence of his activity on the social networking site.

A friend of Emwazi’s said she believed many pupils were being groomed by radicals whilst they were still at school . . .

She said the "Muslim Mafia" were not popular among their peers as they were considered too judgmental. “They had a very specific set of values,” she added. "Quintin Kynaston was full of that. It was 70 per cent or 80 per cent Muslim. There was only one white kid in our class. In every year there was a set that was the Muslim Mafia that hung out together and were very religious.

"So many of them are second generation immigrants whose parents are still very much in touch with their culture. I think there was a system of grooming at Quintin Kynaston because there have been a few of them.

"They petitioned to have a prayer room so they could pray five times a day and they always went to Regent's Park mosque every single Friday. I think that's where it happened. A lot of them suddenly got very religious. Pupils went there from various schools in the area. A group two years above me (from another school) went away and joined some kind of training camp and now four or five of them are dead. I think they would just get groomed."

CNN Keeps Up With The Sentimental And Pleasing Lie About That Synagogue In Norway

Look at the photograph that heads an article that attempts to "put into perspective" well-justified alarm about antisemitic attacks and attitudes in Europe, which rise pari passu with the rise in the Muslim population -- it's a false photograph, because it shows a handful of Musliims holding hands, outside that synagogue in Norway, which hand-holding by three dozen or so Muslims (most of them apparently Kurds, many wearing identifiably Kurdish dress -- and the Kurds have their own reasons for seeing a similarity between Israel and Kurdistan) was first reported as "a crowd of about 1,000 Muslims" until the hopeful story, so pleasing to so many who want to believe that Everything Will Be Okay, was exposed as a fabrication. But apparently CNN thinks it can continue to ignore that, and to publish, as it does here, a photograph that continues to mislead, just as it continues to refer to the "1,000 people," "most of them Muslims," who were surrounding that synagogue in Norway. Can't CNN ever admit it was wrong? Can't it at least take a look at the reports by Agence France Presse and others correcting the initial, and false reports, by CNN and others? What gives CNN the right to publish such a misleading photograph more than a week after the initial reports were corrected by others? Will this be looked into by anyone at CNN? Or by any other journalists, trying to discover why stories that either show Muslims as victims of anti-Muslim hostility (that attempt to portray what was clearly a semi--demented man's murderous lapsus in Chapel HIll into a "hate crime") or as noble embodiments of decency, standing up to Protect the Jews (as that Ring of Protection by "1,000 Musliims" in Norway), have a long life, live on long after they have been exposed and exposed again? Surely this is worth study and discussion.

One more example --- there are so many -- of the hideous level of discussion that fills Arab and Muslim airwaves, from the twisted minds of those raised up in societies suffused with Islam, even as the current regime tries to do, within the limits that it deems prudent, to circumscribe the activities of those who are the most passionate, and thus craziest and cruelest, Defenders of the Faith.

Police in the German port city of Bremen arrested two suspected Islamic extremists and detained several others following warnings of an imminent terrorist attack and the discovery of a large cache of Israeli manufactured sub-machine guns in the city.

Scores of heavily armed police patrolled key points including Bremen’s historic town hall and a synagogue over the last two days after federal intelligence reported the port had been targeted for an imminent attack. “We are not sure how long we will have to combat this situation,” a spokesman for the police anti-terrorism unit said. “Danger levels are high and we have cast a security net over the city.”

Police were said to have raided an Islamic cultural centre, a mosque and dozens of homes in the city. Two suspects were arrested and an unspecified number were detained.

Bremen is considered an Islamic extremist stronghold. The city-state’s intelligence service has some 360 militants under surveillance, according to its Interior Ministry.

Update from the German edition of the Local- Police in Bremen said that the risk of a terrorist attack had been reduced in the city after they arrested two suspected arms dealers. The city remains under high alert, with special protection for the Jewish community.

Isn't it funny how many Muslims generally scream for a boycott of Israeli goods but jihadists appreciate the high quality of Israeli made kit and IT?

Systemic failures by police and social services meant victims were subjected to years of sexual torture, rape and trafficking, it is understood.

The victims, mostly girls, come predominantly from Oxford, making it the latest area in Britain to be embroiled in a scandal over the handling of child sex abuse and proving the issue is not confined to inner cities. One senior investigative source told The Guardian: “If you think you haven’t got a problem in your city or town, you are just not looking for it.”

The report comes after seven men were jailed for a string of horrendous child sex crimes against six victims, aged between 11 and 15, over a seven-year period.

...a serious case review by the Oxfordshire safeguarding children board will be published on Tuesday. It is expected to condemn Thames Valley Police and Oxfordshire social services for failing to act. Key findings are will expose how police officers and social workers failed to believe the girls when they detailed the abuse they were suffering, and dismissed their complaints.

The girls and some of their abusers crossed the police and social services radar multiple times. In 2006 alone, the police received four complaints from the young girls about the men, with their accounts corroborated in some cases. One victim reported the abuse twice to police in 2006. She told officers: “They are doing it to other girls, little girls with their school uniforms on.”

There were thousands of contacts between both agencies and the girls and they were reported missing at least 450 times. One victim, known as Girl C, has spoken of how her foster mother reported her missing 80 times.

The report will also put a figure on the extent of the abuse in Oxfordshire, and is understood to have identified 300 young people who have been subjected to grooming and abuse between 1999 and 2014. All have been spoken to by police or social services.

However, it is feared that the figure may be just the tip of the iceberg.

The 'M' word and the 'R' word are not mentioned here (the euphemism 'Asian' to hide these men behind upright Sikhs and Hindus is) - and abuse is not exclusive to the 'M' group, nor neglect exclusive to those to fear the 'R' word - but I believe this will prove to be a factor.

No word is so misused as the word “cowardly.” Terrorist attacks are often said to be cowardly, when in fact the terrorists who carry them out for the worst of ends are sometimes extremely brave. They risk their lives and even intentionally lose them by their acts. At the very least they risk long and condign legal punishment and public opprobrium. I doubt if one person in a thousand can claim to have acted in his life as courageously as most terrorists.

The reason we call terrorists cowardly is that bravery is generally considered a virtue, and we are reluctant to accord people whom we abhor any virtues at all. We want our enemies to be endowed only with detestable qualities, and we are only too aware that courage is the virtue without which other virtues cannot be exercised. If someone were to say “these brave terrorist attacks,” we should suspect him of sympathizing with them.

This is all based on a confusion about the nature of the virtuousness of bravery. Bravery is not a free-standing virtue, as it were, such that anybody who displays it is thereby virtuous. It is like originality in art or architecture: originality is not a virtue unless in the production of something worthwhile sub specie aeternitatis, that is to say judged by a criterion other than originality itself. Frank Gehry and Daniel Libeskind are not good architects because no one ever built buildings like theirs before. They are good architects, if they are, because their buildings are good, if they are.

Likewise courage is a virtue when it is exhibited in pursuit of a worthy end, or at least one that is not wholly reprehensible. We can admire the courage of an opponent when his aim or goal, though we do not agree with it, is not wholly evil; but we do not admire the courage of German soldiers in the Second World War, though they undoubtedly showed much of it, because what they were fighting for was without any morally redeeming feature. Indeed, courage in pursuit of an evil goal is a vice, not a virtue, without thereby becoming recklessness, which is what Aristotle thought bravery carried to excess should be described as. Terrorists are not reckless: they do not disregard the effects of their attacks but rather want them and calculate to produce them. The attack on the writers and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo was not worse if carried out by reckless cowards than by brave men.

In describing terrorist attacks, therefore, we should eschew the word “cowardly”—they are not better if they are brave than if they are cowardly. Bravery cannot and does not redeem them.

There is another, slightly more subtle misuse of this word that is common, alas, among British policemen when they speak to the press. A recent case in point was that of a congenitally handicapped 67-year-old called Alan Barnes. Barnes, 4 feet 6 inches high, of strange appearance and with poor eyesight, was mugged outside his home in the North of England. His collar bone was broken in the attack, and not surprisingly he wanted to move away.

Just part of the lamentably long history of man’s inhumanity to man perhaps—but fortunately, not quite. A kind-hearted young local woman, Katie Cutler, was so appalled by the crime that she set up an Internet fund in the hope of raising $750 to assist Barnes. Within four days the fund had collected $420,000. Local lawyers, builders, tradesmen, shopkeepers and others have offered their services free, and Barnes, a strong Christian, has thanked the donors in a movingly dignified way. If there is inhumanity in the world, it is important to remember that there is also humanity.

When a local policemen in charge of elucidating the case spoke to the press, he said:

This was a cowardly assault on a vulnerable man who wasn’t able to defend himself. His disability means that he is partially sighted and quite short, and it’s disgraceful that someone would target him.

And a newspaper with a very large circulation described whoever had done it as the country’s “most cowardly thug.”

Now here, in the literal sense, the world “cowardly” is used correctly. The man who committed this crime knew that his victim was incapable of resistance and that he risked nothing (except being caught) by trying to rob him. But though the word is correctly used in the literal sense, nevertheless its use is morally corrosive, for it gives the impression that it was the cowardice that made this crime so awful.

Robbery is not a competitive sport such as boxing, which pits two roughly equal men against each other, both of whom are courageous if not necessarily wise. A robbery is not any the better for the victim’s being of the same size and strength as the robber, and therefore with a chance of escape or even apprehension of his assailant. But this is precisely the impression that the policeman (and the newspaper) gave by insisting on blaring out its message about the “cowardly thug.”

Of course it is true that the crime appalls us more than many, and we hope that when caught, the perpetrator will punished with the greatest severity; but it appalls us in a special way not because of the cowardice of the perpetrator but because it is an intimation of his deep-seated, heartless villainy. We sense that there is nothing to which he would not stoop for some trifling advantage to himself. If he can perpetrate such a crime, he can do anything. If he is not the, he is at least an incarnation of evil.

One might ask whether word choice matters here. What’s in a word, after all? What is a description of an act compared with an act itself? But I think that this laissez faire approach to language is a mistake, and this has been known for a long time. Confucius long ago pointed to the political dangers of saying what is not meant. If language is the medium of thought, then loose language undermines proper thought. As Pascal put it, let us labor to think well, for such is the beginning of morality.

'Jacqui Lambie receives beheading threat, ordering her to help implement Sharia law in Australia'.

'A letter containing a threat to behead Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie unless she helps implement Sharia law in Australia has sparked a security assessment at the outspoken independent's office.

'The letter was received at the senator's Burnie office last week

For those who don't know, Burnie is a medium-sized (20,000 people) coastal town in Tasmania, Australia's southernmost and island state. Incidentally, a young man who grew up in Burnie, Cameron Baird, joined the Army and was killed in action in Afghanistan, receiving the Victoria Cross posthumously. - CM

and included threats to behead the former Palmer United Party member unless she converted to Islam and helped implement Sharia law by March 18.

'It was accompanied by graphic images of a man being beheaded, which prompted the senator's office to treat the threats seriously.

"By the powers invested in me by Allah I sentence you to death", the letter said. "I will take the honour in beheading you...when you are least prepared; my men and I will take your office by surprise."

Peculiar wording. A western convert to Islam, perhaps? Anyway, I doubt any jihadi wannabe ghazi raider/ assassin will take this lady by surprise. She's a former soldier and has a lot of contacts in the local RSL (Returned Servicemen's League). - CM

'Senator Lambie has been a vocal critic of Islamic sharia law (as all decent people ought to be - CM) but she said the death-threats would not deter her.

Hear, hear! Dear Senator Lambie: please contact Dutch politician Geert Wilders and have a nice long heart-to-heart with him. He knows the territory that you are now entering; the dark, dangerous world inhabited by those who, within the West, and among its politicians, have dared to publicly oppose and critique any aspect of Islam. - CM

"I have no doubt that it is my stance against Sharia Law and my questions on Halal that are going on at the moment", she said.

"The bottom line is that we are at war with ISIS and we are just going to have to be extremely cautious."

Yes. Keep going, keep hammering at this issue, dear Senator; but take advice from the AFP and ASIO, and ...watch your back. There is now in Australia - though fortunately still in very small numbers in your home state, Tasmania - a dangerous Fifth Column, out of which the assassins - the Sharia Enforcers - are beginning to rise in ever greater numbers. Brush off your own military training and never, never drop your guard. Fortunately, however, so far as I can discover, there are few or no identifiable Muslims in Burnie itself. When you are in town, the locals had better be on the lookout for any suspicious outsiders. - CM

'She said the matter had been handed over to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Tasmania Police.

"I'm ex-Army, so I guess that I'm always very conscious about what's going on around me and what's happening in my environment, so I'll just continue to be on that sort of high alert and just lift that a little bit more", she said.

Yes, Senator Lambie. Indeed, you are now on the front-line; a front-line of resistance against Islamisation, resistance against the Global Jihad. The ex-army independent Senator from the smallest state in Australia. - CM

'The staff member that received that letter has been offered some counselling.

"At this stage she hasn't taken up that offer, but that offer will always be open."

A few RSL members, veteran soldiers with experience in the badlands of the Dar al Islam in Iraq or Afghanistan, lounging around the office in a friendly sort of way, suitably equipped, would probably do more for staff morale than mere "counselling". - CM

'The senator said she would continue to go about her business as a senator undeterred.

Excellent. - CM

"I will continue to advocate for a ban on Sharia Law, [and on] unnecessary face-coverings in public, and tighter regulation of Halal certification fees in Australia - and to have those Australian citizens who assist Islamic State in any way, charged with the high crimes of Sedition or Treason."

A good start. Work toward those goals - you will find that quite a lot of Australians are on board with those - but start thinking about advocating a ban on all further Muslim entry into Australia, too. - CM

'A personal security assessment is being done to ensure the safety of Senator Lambie following the letter, the spokesman said.

This is curious. Adelaide is in South Australia, not in Tasmania. Of course, Islamisation is a threat to all of Australia, so all sensible Australian Infidels need to be aware of what is happening around the country. - CM

'Senator Lambie said the threat to her life would not help the proponents of the mosque.

Indeed.- CM

"If they think that's [the] way of going around to get a mosque in Adelaide, by threatening my life, then I tell you what, they're certainly going in the wrong direction", she said.

'The senator conceded the death threat could be a hoax, but she said she was taking it very seriously.

"This is what we're waiting for AFP to determine, and I can't do anything else apart from get on with my daily life, until that's been determined." she said.

The ABC permitted Comments on this article. Don't click on the link and read them, unless you want to be infuriated or disheartened; the majority of those who comment on Islam-related articles at our Aussie ABC's online outlet are Islamophiles whether as Muslims or fully-conditioned dhimmis or because they are nice people who haven't a clue what Islam and jihad are actually all about and haven't yet exerted themselves to find out. Intelligent, fully Islamo-informed and Islamocritical comments - though they do appear - are rare. - CM

What do the American people think about Iran's nuclear program and terror enterprise? Why do recent US polls show that Americans want PM Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before the US Congress? What does the American heartland think of Israel's tough policy against the intensifying Iranian terror threat? VOI's Dan Diker hears the answers to these questions from an expert panel: Washington, DC-based national-security expert Shoshana Bryen Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center, former US Army Intelligence officer Jerry Gordon;, Senior Editor of the New English Review and US talk-radio personality Mike Bates.of 1330amWEBY, Pensacola, Florida.